The US Army selects new LUH to replace the mighty Huey

Guess that 1:32 RoG EC.145 "What-if LUH" build isn't a "what-if" anymore.

Trigger wrote:

Guess that 1:32 RoG EC.145 "What-if LUH" build isn't a "what-if" anymore.

 

I did the same thing, but I was hoping it would be the Bell 412

Shoulda been. 

Its too bad, the Super Huey was just too expensive.

I'm assuming this is going to be the UH-72.

Here is a link to a pic of the new LUH, UH-145
http://www.uh-145.com/images/press_rel_6_30_06.jpg
Sad to see the Huey go but i dare say it has proven itself.
Robert

Now why is it, there's a kit of it in 72nd and 32nd, but not 48th?

(No Grant, I'm NOT gonna build it, I was just wondering!)

The first one is supposed to be delivered in November, completly fielded by 08.  However; knowing how the army works, we will have the huey around for another 4 or 5 years.  And who says this ship will actually replace them in full?  Remember, the UH-60 was supposed to do that more than 20 years ago.

This may brand me as a stick in the mud (or worse) but I see this as a bad move. (Yeah,  I'm a Huey lover...par excellence!)  But I smell a rat, we have just handed over the presidential mission to a foregin design. And now this? I'm sorry folks but Eurocopter makes junk... Dangerous junk at that.  Even with the UH-1 series being "long in the tooth", and costly to operate there is still plenty of American Iron out there which is more than up to the task.  Just off the top of my head the folks at Sikorsky for example make machines suitable for both missions.

I guess what I'm driving at is the lack of support by our government for our own aircraft and helicopter industry...I'm really going to start worring when we replace Air Force One with an Airbus.  Me thinks I smell "under-the-table" money at work here.  Etc-etc-etc, ad nausium!

Sorry for the tirade,

Chuck

NASA 736 wrote:

This may brand me as a stick in the mud (or worse) but I see this as a bad move. (Yeah,  I'm a Huey lover...par excellence!)  But I smell a rat, we have just handed over the presidential mission to a foregin design. And now this? I'm sorry folks but Eurocopter makes junk... Dangerous junk at that.  Even with the UH-1 series being "long in the tooth", and costly to operate there is still plenty of American Iron out there which is more than up to the task.  Just off the top of my head the folks at Sikorsky for example make machines suitable for both missions. I guess what I'm driving at is the lack of support by our government for our own aircraft and helicopter industry...I'm really going to start worring when we replace Air Force One with an Airbus.  Me thinks I smell "under-the-table" money at work here.  Etc-etc-etc, ad nausium! Sorry for the tirade, Chuck

I partially agree.  The EC145 has been known to have corossion probems.  Not to mention that it is not built to last as long as the Huey has.  They seem to be a civi success, but they are going to be operating in much different conditions than just going back and forth to hospital pads.  I think the Army decided to go wth the flashy new design to prove they are future, state of the art warriors.  They wouldn't dare upgrade their existing huey, nor pick the 412.  The 412, in their mind is still a Huey, which is old technolagy to them.  Let's say the Army picked the 412 and it was fielded.  What do you think the troops would call it?  Despite whatever name they offically gave it, it would still be refered to as a Huey.  I can tell you for a fact that was a factor for the brass (not a hugh factor, but still a factor).  As idiotic as that is, it was a factor.  I heard it out strait out of somebody's mouth that was close to this project.  I will always love the Huey so I am very heavy hearted about this decision, but what can ya do?  I am very glad we are going to make a German and French company wealthier for their support on our war on terror

Cobrahistorian wrote:

Now why is it, there's a kit of it in 72nd and 32nd, but not 48th? (No Grant, I'm NOT gonna build it, I was just wondering!)

I saw the 1:72 kit at my LHS last weekend and almost got it for you. Now I think I will.

Chuck,

You may be on to something, but at the same time, I'm thinking that it may be a nod to Sikorsky after the Comanche debacle.  Sikorsky stands to gain a lot from this.  However, I think its clear that the Bell 412 was definitely a better, if more expensive choice.

Jon

Unfortunately, bean counters and lawyers run the world.

Cobrahistorian,

For me the choice would have been 412 also. Inreference to the Sikorsky Comanche, it was a new technology, an out growth of the ACAP Pogram (light weight, stealthy helicopters...)  Part of the early LHX family of helicopters intended to supplant the OH-58/UH-1/AH-1. At its inception composites were the "hot set-up", as it were. Anyway, the ovservation and utility parts of the mission was dropped as gunships were the high pryority in Army Aviation at that point. Then as with the Apache, those in command tossed the K.I.S.S. theory out the window and wanted a light attack machine that would be all things to all people. Oh, there were plenty of stubbed toes at the project office to be sure. But the boys of  "Uncle Igor" got the majority blame in lieu of the Army owning up to expecting too much from the machine. The rest is, well history... From it I hope our rich Uncle Samuel learned that you can't cram "All Weather, Anti-Tank, Air to Air and Stealth roles" into one little airframe, and do it with any kind of success...or cheaply for that matter.

The prosicution rests...actually the prosciution has get his but in gear and mow the lawn.

 

Speaking of the AVSCOM mind set (or lack there of....) There is of course my favorite story which I got from a friend in that fine organization...

It seams that the generals incharge of  the UH-60 were smarting from the bad O/R rate of the Blackhawk and made it a prority item on their task list to kill the Huey/Cobra as the old Viet-nam era Iron, had just shown the former up pretty badly in Panama.

A civilian staff type at the meeting and (former UH-1 jock) made the comment to them "Yeah, when the last Blackhawk is turned in, the crew will come home in a Huey."  This resulted in much finger pointing and name calling, which in turn degenerated into a shoving match. (our military commanders at work..aint it great?) 

Fortuneately, our brothern over at the USMC know a good thing when they see it, and the Huey and the Cobra will both "soldier on" under their banner. (They turned both Apache and Blackhawk down as unsuitable...on more than one occasion!)  Maybe, they KNOW something the we army guys don't?

 

NASA, thanks for all the great info!  This sheds some light on this sad decision.  I alos heard from me connected friend that the government is pissed at Bell because of all the set backs with the Osprey and UH-1Y and AH-1Z.  I heard about the Ospery's problems, but not the Marine huey uprade problems.

Cobrahistorian, This would be a great time to start getting some hueys shots while you are down there.  You may not get too many more chances!

NASA 736 wrote:

"Yeah, when the last Blackhawk is turned in, the crew will come home in a Huey."

Great quote.

How about, "When the last Apache is stripped and sent to the test range, it will be a Cobra expending ordnance on it."

Long live the skids!!

 

Andy, I may have to hurt you for that last comment!

In all seriousness, it is really ridiculous that not only are we dropping an airframe that STILL has a heck of a lot of usefulness in it (even after 40 years of service), but doing it for this downright UGLY piece of **** just adds insult to injury.  

I'm gonna try to get as many Huey shots as I can.  When I was up at Cairns it was next to impossible, and thats where they're primarily based out of, but now that I'm elsewhere, I might be able to get some shots on occasion.  We'll see!

Jon

In 1987, during Bright Star operations, a company of active duty UH-60's was posted on the airfield next to the Reserve unit I was in. They had 15 aircraft, we had 3 UH-1H's. Yup, the UH-60 was supposed to be easy to work on, and they sure did alot of that. Never saw more than 8 fly at a time. All three of our UH-1's flew daily, with the one exception of a TBO rotorhead that put one of the aircraft down for 24 hours. I have to hand it to the chaps in the Trans Co. across the ramp, they turned that thing over QUICK! We taped our T/R blade leading edges with metal tape and did engine washes that kept the sand grit from eating up our VIGV's and put 8 hours a day on all three airframes. Not a peep out of them. and these ships had 1966 and 1967 dates on them along with plenty of hours. I would look over at the UH-60 line in the evening and wonder how in the world they expected the US Army to fight a moving battle and have a ready and complete airmobile capacity. To quote a political sharp wit, "You don't get to go to war with everything you want", glad I never had to go to war in a UH-60. I have to hand it the Marines, when you have a proven platform why should you leave it?

Chief Snake

If every convoy that moved on the roads of Iraq had an aerial escort of two pink teams, do you think the gomers that pulled the pin on the IED's would get far as the smoke was clearing? Damn, we have alot of useful Cobras sitting in lots and soaking up sun that could have surely saved same lives. Shoulder fired missiles you say? They have ASE and ECM to buffer that and it would take alot of gomers standing in the open to challenge all the airborne eyes of two pink teams. And then of course, a couple of UH-1's with a minigun on one side and .50 Cal on the other could make those roaming gnomes think about how much they REALLY want to see Allah before the appointed time.

Chief Snake
never throw away things that still work

  Here's what i think. i have no problem with the use of foreign aircraft. But we should at least use ones that have been proven by the military (i.e. the MBB BO 105), instead of something whose hardest workout was airlifting the victim of a motorcycle accident to a hospital. The BO 105 has been in production since the early 70's and is a proven design. Now i will state that i never was a huey fan but it certainly is one of the longest used airframes in US military history, and with good reason, and i do hope that it stays in service for several years to come. To see the reasons why i think we should adopt the BO 105 rather than the EC 145 please visit this website. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/bo105.htm

The Huey may be down, but I have a feeling it's not out yet

having worked now on air force, darpa, navy, and army contracts.......I have to revise my opinion.  I used to think that the Navy was far and away the best at pizzing away billions of dollars with nothing to show for it at the end of the day.   I know realize that the army is just as bad, and probably worse.   It was one of the unwritten rules of the skunk works....don't do business with the navy, they'll hem and haul around and redirect the program so many times that they'll break your bank and they'll break your heart.   I think that the Army has proven just as capable in those regards.....

I sure hate to see the Huey go.  I loved working on them.  They were so easy to get in and out of work wise.  Oh well.  I will sure miss them.

navypitsnipe wrote:

Here's what i think. i have no problem with the use of foreign aircraft. But we should at least use ones that have been proven by the military (i.e. the MBB BO 105), instead of something whose hardest workout was airlifting the victim of a motorcycle accident to a hospital. The BO 105 has been in production since the early 70's and is a proven design. Now i will state that i never was a huey fan but it certainly is one of the longest used airframes in US military history, and with good reason, and i do hope that it stays in service for several years to come. To see the reasons why i think we should adopt the BO 105 rather than the EC 145 please visit this website. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/bo105.htm

 

As far as I know the EC 145 is a direct development of the Bo-105 (via the MBB/kawasaki-117) So it should only be better then the Bo-105 (altough newer isn't always better)

phantom works wrote:

having worked now on air force, darpa, navy, and army contracts.......I have to revise my opinion.  I used to think that the Navy was far and away the best at pizzing away billions of dollars with nothing to show for it at the end of the day.   I know realize that the army is just as bad, and probably worse.   It was one of the unwritten rules of the skunk works....don't do business with the navy, they'll hem and haul around and redirect the program so many times that they'll break your bank and they'll break your heart.   I think that the Army has proven just as capable in those regards.....

  well i have to agree, the navy is very good at spending alot of money and then having very little to show for it. we use SFI's (sight flow indicators) on our steam turbine driven equipment to verify the flow of oil to the bearings. Each one will fit in the palm of your hand, weighs about 6 pounds, and is machined from a bronze casting. EACH ONE COSTS OVER $3,500. now think about the fact that in 1 main propulsion space you have anywhere from 35-40 SFI's. and my class of ship has 2 main spaces. Talk about a waste of money. (not to mention that a paint chip the size of the button on your cell phone will clog the porting and prevent proper operation)

SAR Corpsman and Flight Medics nightmare!!! As long as they are down grading capabilities, next thing you know some rocket scientist will want to convert all the air ambulance companies to the civilian aeromed version and dump the 60's. Being a retired USMC Doc, I love the EC-145 for my civilian job but don't wanna take it into combat!

FLTMEDIC wrote:

SAR Corpsman and Flight Medics nightmare!!! As long as they are down grading capabilities, next thing you know some rocket scientist will want to convert all the air ambulance companies to the civilian aeromed version and dump the 60's. Being a retired USMC Doc, I love the EC-145 for my civilian job but don't wanna take it into combat!

 

So true, the huey can carry 3 on strechers and another couple in the seat with the medic and a crew chief.  The 145 has room for 2 strechers and a flight medic.  Fuzzy math?  At least with the 412 you would have and the same interior set up and space as the huey.

UH-1V_CE wrote:

I partially agree.  The EC145 has been known to have corossion probems.  Not to mention that it is not built to last as long as the Huey has.  They seem to be a civi success, but they are going to be operating in much different conditions than just going back and forth to hospital pads.  I think the Army decided to go wth the flashy new design to prove they are future, state of the art warriors.  They wouldn't dare upgrade their existing huey, nor pick the 412.  The 412, in their mind is still a Huey, which is old technolagy to them.  Let's say the Army picked the 412 and it was fielded.  What do you think the troops would call it?  Despite whatever name they offically gave it, it would still be refered to as a Huey.  I can tell you for a fact that was a factor for the brass (not a hugh factor, but still a factor).  As idiotic as that is, it was a factor.  I heard it out strait out of somebody's mouth that was close to this project.  I will always love the Huey so I am very heavy hearted about this decision, but what can ya do?  I am very glad we are going to make a German and French company wealthier for their support on our war on terror

BINGO! and also... don´t forget our MEDIA friends... I can almost hear some Gerardo_wannabe ranting about the Army spending our hard earned dollars on a "phased out, obsolete, unefficient and expensive design" and twisting this whole thing to death.

Man this is a big dissapointment to me.

Joey

UH-1V_CE wrote:

So true, the huey can carry 3 on strechers and another couple in the seat with the medic and a crew chief.  The 145 has room for 2 strechers and a flight medic.  Fuzzy math?  At least with the 412 you would have and the same interior set up and space as the huey.

2 strechers and a flight medic... and not counting eventually the Army will overweight the hell out of the original design. BTW I heard they are to be used stateside only, that is major BS. We will take it everywhere we go & anybody that had a ride on a UH-1H/V, and lately the H-60s knows you can´t have enough space!. That´s why the Air Force is installing those ammo canisters for the Ma Dueces/Miniguns outside, and I heard they are looking for some smaller extra tanks (the ones that go inside). Now the 145 is like a Yugo compared to the 60 or even the 412...

And if you think "yeah, but they are not expected to cover the same mission envelope"... think again, Army aviation has always been a swiss army knife of sorts.

"Sorry man, you wait here until someone else comes and pick you up, we are full"